[Ron Mummert]

I think you need to seriously consider your definition of the word fact. A 'fact' is something testable - not just your prediction (that's well before 'conclusion' in the scientific process), but something that has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.




Golly - this thread has certainly generated an opinion or two, after I thought the subject was a well beaten dead horse months ago.

I'm again bleary eyed trying to keep up. Conclusion - there will never be consensus, so let's all get drunk.

One thing first, though. DEFINITIONS.

I'm sure back there on page 2, 3 or 6 someone attempted to define "intelligence". I guess we're going to pursue the western world's defination of it, which usually means we must "test" for it, calculate it, publish it & call it IQ. If IQ implies an inate ability to achieve in ALL measurable categories, then Rob's contentions could prove correct - sort of.

Is "common sense" intelligence? Is lack of common sense stupidity? Is a dyslexic astrophysisist a moron? 30 years ago he would have been relegated to the school's dummy section, & taught janitorial skills 101. Point being we can't really nail this argument, because the criteria for measurement change with the psychobabble de joir (du joir?) Pardon my bad French - I'm a victim of '50s education.

Ron (I may be ignorant, but I'm fat).